Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "LEED Interpretation" "1632" "2006-11-10" "New Construction" "EAc4 - Ozone protection" "This question is in regards to the administrative alternative calculation method for this credit described in a credit ruling dated 01-11-2005. The method has since been rescinded but it can still be used by projects which were registered for LEED prior to October 15, 2005. The question is whether the calculation defaults published for LEED-NC v2.2 should be used or whether those mentioned in the ruling dated apply. For example, a 30 year life is mentioned as the default for equipment in the rescinded ruling, which is a bit of a stretch for small 5-ton HVAC units, but 10 years is used in LEED-NC v2.2 as a default unless documented otherwise. The difference in the default values is not trivial. The rescinded defaults can allow projects to use significantly more HVAC equipment of higher ozone depletion potential than would be allowed under LEED-NC v2.1 for non-HCFC equipment (assuming a maximum 15% non-base building exemption), or under LEED-NC v2.2 following its calculation requirements. For those projects which can still use the rescinded ruling can the USGBC please provide clarification on the defaults values to use, and what associated supporting documentation requirements should be provided for small sized equipment, if any. Also, a CIR ruling dated 11-04-2002 allows up to 15% of non-base building equipment to be excluded from the credit requirements. Does the alternative calculation method allow for the exclusion non-base building equipment up to 15% of total HVAC capacity, or must all equipment be included to show compliance?" "In reference to the EAc4 CIR of 1-11-2005, the project wishes to know a) which default assumptions to use in the CIR\'s alternative calculation method, and b) whether any building systems can be excluded from that alternative calculation. Regarding the first question, if the project team is eligible to use the CIR\'s alternative calculation method (i.e., if it registered before the 10/5/05 and is pursuing LEED-NC v2.0 or v2.1 certification), then it may use the default assumptions listed in the 1-11-2005 CIR itself. Projects that registered after the cutoff date must use the methodology and default assumptions published in LEED-NC v2.2. Regarding the second question, the CIR\'s alternative calculation method is intended to include all refrigerant-containing building equipment. Consistent with LEED-NC v2.2, small HVAC units and other equipment - such as standard refrigerators and water coolers - containing less than 0.5 lbs of refrigerant are not considered part of the ""base building"" system and are not subject to the requirements of the CIR alternative calculation method, and need not be documented in the LEED submittal. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5462" "2005-01-11" "New Construction" "EAc4 - Ozone protection" "A revised form of EA credit 4.0 appears in the draft version of LEED 2.2 now being circulated for public comment. The engineer on this project evaluated multiple refrigerant options using the methodology of the 2.2 draft system. The refrigerant selection that best meets the intent of this point for our project is HCFC-123. For this project HCFC-123, with an output of 35.3, satisfies the equation, yielding a value less than 100 and well within the acceptable range. Given this calculation, the team believes that R-123 has the least harmful effect and is therefore the best choice to meet the credit intent. Is this refrigerant acceptable to attain EA credit 4.0? " "Please refer to the 1/11/05 ruling for the EAc4 inquiry submitted 1/11/05. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5540" "2005-02-22" "New Construction" "EAc4 - Ozone protection" "Energy and Atmosphere Credit 4 reads: ""Install base building level HVAC and refrigeration equipment and fire suppression systems that do not contain HCFCs or Halons."" Evaporative cooling complies with the intent of the credit. Our design uses an indirect/direct evaporative cooling system which uses no HCFC\'s or Halons. The evaporative cooling serves the entire building cooling needs including comfort cooling for the occupied areas as well as the telephone and data rooms. There is no halon system or special fire supression system. If the cooling is achieved without the use of refrigerants, other than water, and does not use compressor cooling, does evaporative cooling qualify to get this credit point? " "If the design team can demonstrate that through commonly accepted engineering practices and calculations that the evaporative cooling system meets the requirements set forth by the owner and occupants in the design intent documentation, and those requirements provide reasonable thermal comfort, then the proposed evaporative cooling system is acceptable for credit achievement. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5874" "2005-01-11" "New Construction" "EAc4 - Ozone protection" "The LEED Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee recently released its final report entitled ""The Treatment by LEED of the Environmental Impacts of Refrigerants,"" downloadable from: https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEED_tsac/TSAC_Refrig_Report_Final-Approved.pdf USGBC is submitting this inquiry and ruling to indicate how the report\'s recommendations affect LEED-NC EAc4. The question at hand is: Can project teams use the report\'s methodology defined in section 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 and recommended in section 6 of this report for projects registered under LEED-NC v2.0 and v2.1? " "THE RULING BELOW HAS BEEN RESCINDED by vote of the USGBC Board of Directors, for v2.1 projects registering after 9/30/05. The proposal is being included in the v2.2 member ballot. Further details can be found in the September 20th news item, http://www.usgbc.org/News/usgbcnews_details.asp?ID=1833. -------------------------------------------------------- Yes. For LEED-NC projects registered under v2.0 or v2.1 project teams are eligible for EAc4 if documentation with the following requirements is provided: REQUIREMENTS: Install base building level HVAC and refrigeration equipment that uses refrigerants that comply with the following formula: LCGWP + LCODP x 100,000 < or = 100 Where: LCODP = [ODPr x (Lr x Life +Mr) x Rc]/Life LCGWP = [GWPr x (Lr x Life +Mr) x Rc]/Life LCODP: Lifecycle Ozone Depletion Potential (lbCFC11/Ton-Year) LCGWP: Lifecycle Direct Global Warming Potential (lbCO2/Ton-Year) GWPr: Global Warming Potential of Refrigerant 0 < GWPr < 12,000 lbCO2/lbr ODPr: Ozone Depletion Potential of Refrigerant 0 < ODPr < 0.2 lbCFC11/lbr Lr: Refrigerant Leakage Rate (% of charge per year) 0.5% < Lr < 3%/Year Mr: End-of-life Loss (% of charge) 2% < Mr < 10 % Rc: Refrigerant Charge (lbs refrigerant per Ton of cooling capacity) 0.9 < Rc < 3.3 Life: Equipment Life (Years) 10 < Life < 35 Years For projects with multiple units of base building level HVAC and refrigeration equipment, a weighted average of all base building level HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall be applied to the formula above: [ SUM (LCGWP + LCODP x 105) x Qunit ] / Qtotal < or = 100 Where: Qunit = Cooling capacity of an individual HVAC or refrigeration unit (Tons) Qtotal = Total cooling capacity of all HVAC or refrigeration equipment (Tons) AND install fire suppression systems that do not contain ozone depleting substances - CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs or Halons. SUBMITTALS: Provide a letter from the architect or engineer demonstrating that the building HVAC and refrigeration systems use refrigerants that comply with the formula: LCGWP + LCODP x 100,000 < or = 100 and listing the fire suppressions installed and declaring that all fire suppression systems are free of ozone depleting substances. The refrigerant charge per Ton of cooling capacity and refrigerant type will be detailed in this letter. The letter will use default values of 1.0% leakage per year (Lr) with an end-of life loss of charge of 3% (Mr) over an assumed 30year life (Life). Alternative figures may exceptionally be used provided the project can justify the assumptions made. Please note: This set of requirements is provided as an alternative compliance path for EAc4. Project teams may choose to document compliance with the existing EAc4 language in LEED-NC v2.0 and v2.1. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5916" "2005-04-04" "New Construction" "EAc4 - Ozone protection" "The subject project is the second phase of construction for the Desert Edge High School, located in Goodyear, Arizona. The initial phase of construction was completed in 2002. At that time, a central heating/cooling plant was constructed by the Carrier Corporation, who continues to own and operate the central plant. Chilled water and hot water are generated at the central plant. These products are metered by Carrier and sold to the school district. There are two Carrier centrifugal chillers in the central plant. Both chillers utilize R134a refrigerant, which is a non-HCFC refrigerant. During the initial phase of construction, the design included a second chiller to provide capacity for future phases of development (i.e., Phase 2). The chillers in the central plant meet the criteria for EAc4 Ozone Depletion and support early compliance with the Montreal Protocol as they utilize an HFC refrigerant. The Owner and Design Team could have used an alternate HVAC system, such as packaged DX rooftop air conditioning units, in lieu of air handling units utilizing chilled water as the cooling medium. This is a very common choice for schools in our area, as the first cost is typically lower. Had the Owner and Design Team chosen to use the packaged DX rooftop air conditioning units during the initial phase, the design would most assuredly have resulted in the use of an HCFC refrigerant. Under that scenario, Phase 2 would have had a similar system with a similar HCFC refrigerant. Since the Owner and Design Team avoided using an HCFC refrigerant and instead chose to utilize an existing central plant that utilizes an HFC refrigerant, as planned during the initial phase, we feel that the intent of this credit has been met. QUESTION: By avoiding the use of an HCFC refrigerant and connecting to a cooling system which was planned for future expansion and which uses an HFC refrigerant, can the project earn this point?" "Yes, this credit is achievable if the method of cooling includes the use of no HCFCs. " "None" "None"